Clavecilla Estate and Development Corp. v. Manguino

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 243975. March 18, 2019.]

CLAVECILLA ESTATE AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [CEDCO], petitioner, vs.FE MANGUINO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 March 2019 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 243975 (Clavecilla Estate and Development Corporation [CEDCO] v. Fe Manguino)

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition 1 outright for lack of (a) verification; (b) sworn certification against forum shopping; and (c) verified statement as to the material date of receipt of the assailed decision.

Under Section 1, 2 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules), a petition for review on certiorari filed before this Court must be verified. Further, Section 4 3 of the same Rules requires that the petition must contain a sworn certification against forum shopping and that it must indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received. In this case, the records are bereft of showing compliance with such rules.

In any event, the Court of Appeals (CA) did not commit any reversible error in affirming 4 the dismissal 5 of the instant case on the ground of litis pendentia. As between Civil Case No. MC16-11333 and Civil Case No. 2016-143, all the elements of litis pendentia are present: (a) there is identity of parties; (b) there is identity of rights asserted, as both involved the respective parties' rights under the same contract; (c) the reliefs prayed for by the parties in both cases are founded on the same facts and thus will require identical evidence; and (d) a judgment in one case would constitute res judicata against the other, 6 as both cases arise from the same transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. Specifically, the defense interposed by the petitioner in its Answer 7 in Civil Case No. 2016-143 was also used to substantiate its complaint in the instant case. Thus, the dismissal of the complaint was proper.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTO

Division Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON

Deputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 10-24.

2. Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. (Emphasis supplied)

3. Section 4. Contents of petition. — The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full name of the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party as respondent, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, and the reasons or arguments relied on for the allowance of the petition; (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as would support the petition; and (e) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 42. (Emphases supplied)

4. See CA Decision dated October 1, 2018, penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring; rollo, pp. 32-42.

5. Not attached to the rollo but referenced in the CA Decision; see id. at 35.

6. See Cruz v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 210446, April 18, 2018.

7. Not attached to the rollo.